Eastern Orthodoxy Through Uneducated Eyes

Eastern Orthodoxy Through Uneducated Eyes

A Review of Donald Fairbairn's "Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes"

"Our calling is not to blaze a trail, for Christ has done that for us. Rather, our task is to join the many who have walked and are walking the path, to follow the footprints leading to eternity and to God."

-Donald Fairbairn

In Donald Fairbairn's "Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes", Fairbairn takes the basic beliefs of Orthodoxy and explains them from a Western point of view. It's evident that this book was written for those of the Protestant faith due to the language used and the issues they address. Although he describes the theology correctly, his interpretation of what the theology means and what it means to Orthodox Christians is inaccurate and almost offensive.

Fairbairn decided to break the book into three parts so that he could properly explain Orthodoxy with a Western perspective. In the first part, Fairbairn explains where the source of the Orthodox Vision comes from. He claims that the source is Tradition. He talks about the tradition of the church and how we express said tradition. In the second part of the book he talks about the heart of the Orthodox Vision, which he asserts is the Union with God. He delves into basic theology and explains salvation and humanity in a way that "Westerners" can understand. I think he accurately reports on the basic Orthodox Theology and he writes in such a way that those who are uneducated on this matter can easily comprehend. The third section of this book, which is titled "The Orthodox Vision and Its Distortions", Fairbairn talks about "Popular Orthodoxy" and actions and views that Orthodox faithful do that are incorrect (i.e. the emphasis on the Saints etc.). In my opinion Fairbairn takes this opportunity to criticize Orthodoxy and point out some major faults that the Orthodox faithful have. He states that the church is "Triumphalistic" and does not have any tolerance for other faiths and their churches . I plan on expanding on part three later on in this review and more particularly popular Orthodoxy. Even though the book was dry and at times boring, Fairbairn's assessment of Orthodoxy is fairly accurate in parts one and two.

By reading this book, it's clear that the author, Donald Fairbairn is very educated on the facts, and history of Orthodoxy and its Theology. But when it comes to the interpretation of the theology Fairbairn misses the target. I felt that his explanations were inaccurate and some of his claims were erroneous. For example, in part three, Fairbairn brings up Popular Orthodoxy and how the laypeople of the Orthodox Church have neglected theology and chose solely spiritual faith over it. Fairbairn cites Florovsky, "the faith of the old nanny, or of the illiterate churchgoer, was considered as the model and most authentic type [of Christianity]." I interpreted this as people today seeing the church in this light. I was troubled to read this because I don't think that people in the Orthodox Church reason that way. I feel that Fairbairn thinks of the Orthodox faithful as superstitious people who will believe anything that a Bishop or Priest tells them. He doesn't truly understand the use of icons and relics in the church and almost pokes fun at them in his book. He also compares the Orthodox to Pagans. "...paganism beneath a Christian veneer is also present in popular Orthodoxy..." and compares Saints of the church to Pagan God's, "...Christian saints often inherited the mythological traditions of pagan deities worshipped in pre-Christian Russia."

Fairbairn's presentation of Orthodoxy was both fair and unfair and accurate and inaccurate on many different levels. Like stated before, part one and part two (with the exception of Chapter seven on the Saints) of "Eastern Orthodoxy..." are informative and accurate but when it comes to chapter seven and part three, Fairbairn interprets Orthodox theology and his interpretation is faulty. Fairbairn does a wonderful job capturing the Orthodox Church's' tradition and nicely compares it to the Protestant and Roman Catholic understanding of church and community,

"... [Protestants] view the church as a community of people who have responded through the faith in Christ to what God has revealed in his Word... Roman Catholic understanding... focuses on the hierarchy... In contrast, Eastern Orthodoxy sees the Church as a mystical entity that comprises God's direct activity."

Fairbairn uses great scriptural support and accurately describes the church as spiritual and theological at the same time. Where he misses the mark though, are his thoughts on the Saints, the use of icons in Orthodox daily worship and the use and presence of Holy Relics in worship services, and church buildings. According to Fairbairn, "...veneration of the Saints is...tantamount to blasphemy because it denies the uniqueness of Christ as the one mediator between God and humanity." Fairbairn could not be more wrong with this statement. If it wasn't for the respect and attention we give to the Saints we wouldn't be able to glorify God and get close to Him. This is one of Orthodoxy's most distinguishing and unique qualities, the veneration and recognition of Saints as intercessors. Fairbairn unfairly attacks the veneration and use of icons in chapter seven and claims that the Orthodox faithful worship images, thus violating the second commandment, "Eastern emphasis on icons is essentially idolatry." Fairbairn cites Ouspensky who delivers a nice defense for the Orthodox, "Icons are intermediaries between the represented person and the praying faithful, causing them to commune in grace." The use of icons in spiritual life is found only in the Orthodox church. No other religion can understand the use of these objects and no other religion

...